Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geneva Conventions controversy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Courcelles 08:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Geneva Conventions controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Poorly defined scope and unreferenced for an extended period of time and appears to be OR. I did some Google searches and there is no sense of a singular "Geneva Convention Controversy" Sadads (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, but also partially merge with Geneva Conventions, with sourcing improvements. While there certainly is a controversy out there regarding the Geneva Conventions and its application to terrorists in the modern age, I do believe that the article constitutes as original research, and there isn't much straight-coverage of the controversy to make it a both well defined and notable. Still, the controversy is something that is worth noting in the article Geneva Conventions, and there are limited sources available that cover the controversy described in the article (for instance, this source). In addition, there are several notable people out there who have taken sides in the argument (such as Michael D. Maples and David Petraeus), so I think a merge of the most important details, along with adding the limited sourcing that is available, would be appropriate. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there certainly should be a discussion of how the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists somewhere in the Geneva convention page. Just don't think the content we have now is worth saving, Sadads (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: as WP:OR, under a poorly thought out title. An article on the legal status of war on terror suspects (under both international, and relevant national, law) would probably be appropriate (if sourced to solid legal scholarship) -- but this isn't the seed for such an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It's terribly obsolete. SCOTUS decided long ago that they're not POWs.  Most of this is already in unlawful combatant and elsewhere.  Note:  I'm willing to change my mind if someone wants to bring it up to date. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Very poor, biased article. Czolgolz (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources do not establish that there is a notable topic with this name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Is there a WP:WTH yet? An actually legitimate argument about the very real discussion of the definition of "POW" under the Geneva Convention and this the article for it? Just describing the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions would take up more room than what was used here. And I dont think using two quotes is enough to qualify for notabilty and sourcing. There should be a well written article or at least a section of the Geneva Convention page describing the debates but this is definitely not it. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and esp. Hrafn. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.